Years ago my dad went skydiving. He had a rough landing, complained that his back was in a lot of pain. He laid on the couch for like a week. My family, myself included, did not give it much though. He usually (like the rest of us) exaggerates.

He eventually (after months) got back to normal. An unrelated incident happend, and he had to go the physical therapy. The physical therapist asked him when he broke his back. The only time it could have happened was during the sky diving incident. We all felt pretty guilty after that one :/

Same goes for me. About 12 years ago I took it. Haven't had acne since. I get small pimples every once in a while, but hardly at all.

And I never got any side effects of accutane. Though I still remember the pamphlet the dermatologist gave me when I started it. It showed pictures of deformed bones. And said that if you exercise too much it can cause bone deformities. Freaked me out, since I ran a lot. But alas, no problems.

Although I agree that there are a lot of problems with the current system, I don't think the PPaACA is the best idea.

Hear me out.

First of all, there's the obvious problem; Forcing people to buy coverage when they normally wouldn't. Arguable, of course.

Secondly, it seems like people don't understand how insurance works. If everyone were healthy it'd be peachy. But when you have people who have had, and will definitely continue to have issues, then the cost will rise for everyone. Insurance companies don't cover people with pre-existing conditions because if they did then the the pool of money everyone has paid into will be drained. So by covering them you must either raise rates for everyone or pay the doctors less (usually resulting is lower quality).

Third thing: Increasing taxes on the rich seems like a popular choice these days. I, personally, don't think we should be forcing a minority to pay the majority. I know this is the wrong forum to be saying such a thing, since everyone here is all pitchforks-and-fire about the 1%. But maybe we should be fixing the system rather than trying to patch it by attacking citizens. Just a thought.

Fourth thing: As you force everyone to have coverage, and give coverage to people who wouldn't get as good coverage before, there's an incentive to use it (and more often). As people use it more often, often on costly visits, then the cost to everyone goes up. This happened in Canada. They covered everyone, so people go in for minor things. So the demand for health care went up, the supply did not match it fast enough, so the expenses on the government got all crazy and the quality suffered.

Like I said before, I do think that the system has problems. But I think we should be fixing the existing options (Medicare, Medicaid) before doing something so drastic. And we should obviously be monitoring the price gouging by insurance companies, and the like.

I think that, as of lately in the US, people want everything to be fair, and to be covered by the government. That mindset could take the whole system down.

Honestly, the two party system works well (I know many would disagree). People tend to think that more parties will help. But the system was crafted for two parties, and works well with two.

The fact is that the voters can kill a party, and may in the near future. Most voters don't know their history. Like the fact that the Republicans used to be called the Democratic Republicans, and replaced the Whigs.

Here's some reasons why the two party system is used / began:

Avoids a single party (more on this below)

The US has always had a two-party divide, even before the two-party system was introduced

It encourages winner-take-all (very American)

Causes both parties to cater to the masses, avoiding niche focus

Americans tend not to study up on their politics & politicians, and a two-party system is easier for the average citizen to understand, allowing them to make better educated decisions

Of course there are some problems with it:

Third+ parties have a really tough time entering the landscape

Encourages voters to not study up on the politics of things

Less specific goals of parties, since they are trying to please everyone

Honestly the idea in America is that the people decide who should represent them, and then the politicians representing them go and make educated decisions for the masses. So the two party system aids this belief.

And the way the system is set up there will never be a single party. This is the biggest strength. The USA was (mostly) formed by people who left countries that had a single ruler. The main goal at the time was preventing this to happen in the USA.

My two cents: The Republican party will collapse. It has lost many younger voters, and will continue to. Classical republicans had much different views than the modern, and the modern are more focused on topics like religion. As the current youth ages then more Republican voters will die, causing the party to shrink until it is replaced. It will be replaced by a part that is fiscally conservative (like Republicans) but socially liberal (like Democrats). Which would cater to a lot of people wanting less taxes, smaller government, but less rules about who can and can't marry, et cetera.